Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why? Why is that such a bad thing? Remember: religion isn't just something objectively studied and analyzed -- it's subjective, experiential, and felt as part of the cultural context in which a child is nurtured.

Religious beliefs are one of those things that are so fundamental to the identity of the person that to impose them on someone else amounts to disrespecting his personhood.

So... you object to parents promising to nurture their children within a definable cultural context???

I object to parents pretending that their babies are little Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc., and to them raising them as if their religious beliefs are a question that's been settled permanently.

Depends on the age and stage of development of the child.

It's not okay at any age:

When a child is too young to consider what he's being exposed to critically, that's when it's most important to carefully consider what is going to be influencing him.

When he grows to the point where he can think critically and is capable of expressing a position of conscience on the issue, it should be respected.

Setting the bar for healthy eating is part of the parents' job.

I think you know perfectly well that this is a non sequitir.

For greater clarity, though, an anecdote:

A few years back, I was the coach for a robotics team at an elementary school. It was great - not only did it get the kids excited about math and science, it really helped the self-esteem of a bunch of the kids and helped forge friendships. At the end of our season, the teachers decided to throw a pizza party to celebrate the team's accomplishments. They sent a letter home to the parents telling them about the team's season and the party.

The next day (as I was told by one of the teachers later), one of the kids on the team came up to her in tears. He said that his parents wouldn't let him go to the pizza party because the pizza wouldn't be halal. Apparently, they also didn't trust their son to not eat the pizza if he attended the party but brought his own food. He was excluded from a celebration of his own success because of his parents' desire to impose their religious beliefs on him.

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

When the child becomes really old enough to make that choice, being welcome or not in the home is extreme.

Indeed. Extreme, but not uncommon.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I completely understand your point. And i think everyone else does so too. Nobody is ignoring that. I don't know why you are thinking otherwise.

As i have already said on this topic:
"This is the very root of the problem: to regard your belief as knowledge even when there is a major disagreement ( by experts ) on it."



You described it yourself as a matter of not understanding that people are sincere in their beliefs. Regardless, it doesn't matter, because i understood what you meant back then.

You kept rephrasing my statement wrong though , you gave it a whole new meaning actually. No big issue though

 

[Magic Man]

Why? Why is that such a bad thing? Remember: religion isn't just something objectively studied and analyzed -- it's subjective, experiential, and felt as part of the cultural context in which a child is nurtured.

Because it should be left up to the child when he/she is able to figure it out for him/herself, not forced on them from the time they're born.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Not sure why you're deleting the name of the poster from the quote function- having it there makes it easier to spot replies to your posts. Anyways-

Right. And saying, "I believe" is different from saying, "I know."

Indeed it is. This, however, is not really the difference-

One is approached through metaphor, myth, story. The other is approached through fact, analysis, and conclusion.

This is certainly not true of belief in general, and is not even generally true of religious beliefs. They often are approached or clearly intended that way, but just as frequently (if not more so), they are not. Most Christians would tell you that Christ's resurrection is no mere myth, but is a fact no less than the fact that Paris is the capitol of France (and similarly for claims in most other religions).

You continue to insist that your view of religion is the One True View of religion, when historically speaking, it is not especially accurate. And as I said before, since religion is, from a certain perspective, just a thing that people do, there is no "True" or "Right" way to do it; and many people approach religion as a matter of fact, knowledge, objective truth, etc.- both now, and throughout the history of religion.

Plus, "what religion is" isn't based upon an opinion-poll approach. It's defined by those who actually understand what the hell is going on.

And who would that be? What qualifications do they posses to have some bizarre sort of authority on the matter? As above, in a certain sense religion just is what it is- in most contexts, some idealized notion of how religion should be is not relevant to accurately describing what it actually is.

From Fowler's model, people usually aren't ready to evaluate the matter until their mid-twenties to early thirties

All the more reason to NOT push the matter on young children then.

Which means that, in the earlier stages, parents teaching their children the myths and metaphors are age-appropriate.

Teaching religious myths and metaphors as myths and metaphors, at an age when a child can at least grasp the concept of a myth or a metaphor, is not really what people are objecting to here.

 

[Me Myself]

Yes. One that can't be imposed.

Of course it can o.o.

Whi lied to you thus?

 

[Me Myself]

The main reason why indoctrination / brainwashing are seen with so much despisal is because they hurt the cognitive capability of their targets, though. They go way beyond simple censure or misrepresentation, by strongly associating certain emotions to certain concepts.

Unless you are somehow dramatically different from most humans, it is impossible not to associate emotions to concepts.

 

[LuisDantas]

Unless you are somehow dramatically different from most humans, it is impossibleot to associate emotions to concepts.

I beg you pardon?

It is all right to insinuate that I am abnormal. But to claim that there is no such thing as associating emotions to concepts! For shame!

Now seriously, I take it that you meant something else?

 

[Me Myself]

I beg you pardon?

It is all right to insinuate that I am abnormal. But to claim that there is no such thing as associating emotions to concepts! For shame!

Now seriously, I take it that you meant something else?

Yes I did let me edit right away

"N" and space have been placen hopefully the message is clearer now.

 

[Mister Emu]

This makes it sound like you want them to accept your beliefs on the basis of nothing more than your say-so.

Your understanding is wrong.

However, it just so happens that religious truth is not arrived at, for the most part, through critical thinking.

I thought I just explained that I disagree with teaching children about religion in such a way that the "truth" of one particular religion is a foregone conclusion.

Then why did you respond with a "no"?

Well, since you find it so easy to devalue every other religion, hopefully you'll see why someone else wouldn't value your own.

Well and good... and entirely irrelevant.

I'm not sure that's true, but if it is, then congratulations: the Catholic faith is in the same category as Russell's Teapot and Sagan's Dragon in the Garage. "You can't prove it's not true" doesn't get you to "it's reasonable to force on kids."

Argument to ridicule is tired and tiring... and I've always liked my herring red too.

That aside:
P1: I know a truth.
P2: I cannot demonstrate or otherwise prove this truth.

C:? (I should just keep quiet about it? Ha!)

Secondly, speaking of logical gaps... there is a very real disconnect between "Cannot be proven" and "untrue". You must bridge this disconnect before you can ever come close to pretending that teaching the unproven is not merely neutral, but unethical in nature.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your understanding is wrong.

How so?

However, it just so happens that religious truth is not arrived at, for the most part, through critical thinking.

I'd go one step further and say that, for the most part, it's arrived at in conflict with critical thinking.

Then why did you respond with a "no"?

Because I was correcting your description of my position. I followed my "no" with a restatement of my actual position, as is the convention:

"You want two scoops of strawberry ice cream."
"No, I want two scoops of vanilla."
"So you don't want any ice cream?"

Well and good... and entirely irrelevant.

I think it's very relevant, since one argument I've been making in this thread is that religious indoctrination by devout parents is hypocritical.

Argument to ridicule is tired and tiring... and I've always liked my herring red too.

That aside:
P1: I know a truth.
P2: I cannot demonstrate or otherwise prove this truth.

C:? (I should just keep quiet about it? Ha!)

I think it's presumptive for you to say "I know a truth". It would be more accurate to say "I am convinced of a belief."

Secondly, speaking of logical gaps... there is a very real disconnect between "Cannot be proven" and "untrue". You must bridge this disconnect before you can ever come close to pretending that teaching the unproven is not merely neutral, but unethical in nature.

One reason: teaching a child to accept hearsay uncritically sets him up to be vulnerable to others who would take advantage of him.

 

[LuisDantas]

When the child becomes really old enough to make that choice, being welcome or not in the home is extreme.

Indeed. Extreme, but not uncommon.

Unfortunately very true.

I suppose some of the more extreme atheistic parents might be very disappointed if their children do not follow their example, but I have little in the way of evidence of that even happening at all, much less being common or intense.

On the other hand, I do know for a fact that theists and believers of various faiths fairly often have a very hard time accepting that their own children might have different beliefs (or lack of same). I have met plenty of people who are examples, and I have my own testimonial to present.

To claim that the problem is in some way "symetrical" is to attempt to obfuscate a very real and serious problem.

 

[Mister Emu]

With all due respect, they've probably crossed the line between "belief" and "fact." I'm not responsible for that trespass.

It isn't a trespass.

Plus, "what religion is" isn't based upon an opinion-poll approach. It's defined by those who actually understand what the hell is going on.

Yay, elitism. It doesn't surprise me that you reference Fowler's stages of "development".

If you think "Religion is values" or that religion is about finding our place in world and self-worth, then it is clear you don't "understand what the hell is going on".

Religion is about metamorphosis. It is about the soul changing relationship where the very real divine essence reaches out to us. A religion that is values is a sad and shriveled thing.

You may have "belief", but it seems apparent you don't have the faith.

 

[arthra]

For Baha'is in my opinion... we generally try to inculcate an attitude of acceptance of various religions as well as our own.. So later when my children were able to understand I saw that they attended services in Temples, Mosques and churches...

Around fifteen years of age .. in my family the child or young adult can make up their own mind what religion or lack there of they want to follow.. In my case the children remained Baha'is and a few months ago my daughter had a Baha'i marriage..

 

[Mister Emu]

How so?

In that I will not presume to teach them religion merely on my say-so. i will, hopefully, guide them in the ability to ascertain for themselves religious fact. The same as I would scientific fact.

I'd go one step further and say that, for the most part, it's arrived at in conflict with critical thinking.

I'd expect nothing less.

Because I was correcting your description of my position. I followed my "no" with a restatement of my actual position, as is the convention

My apologies, it is a failure of understanding then. Could you explain the essential difference then between:

I object to teaching x religion as relating facts of reality
and
I object to teaching that leads to the truth of x religion being a forgone conclusion

It seems very much to me as the difference between saying "I'd like two scoops of chocolate ice cream" and saying "I'd like two chocolate scoops of ice cream".

I think it's very relevant, since one argument I've been making in this thread is that religious indoctrination by devout parents is hypocritical.

Do tell, being such a large thread and short of time, I haven't been able to thoroughly digest every post... I don't see how the valuation put on my religion by others is relevant to how I raise said children.

I think it's presumptive for you to say "I know a truth". It would be more accurate to say "I am convinced of a belief."

I'm asking in the hypothetical... Or are you saying in general that if you cannot demonstrate, it is not knowledge?

One reason: teaching a child to accept hearsay uncritically sets him up to be vulnerable to others who would take advantage of him.

Is there no middle ground for you between "accepted uncritically" and "repeatable, demonstrable, and empirically proven"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In that I will not presume to teach them religion merely on my say-so. i will, hopefully, guide them in the ability to ascertain for themselves religious fact. The same as I would scientific fact.

But you also said (I think) that you'd raise your children to be Catholic. You also said that your own reasons for being Catholic can't be demonstrated to others, which suggests to me that simply "guiding them in the ability to ascertain for themselves religious fact" couldn't be relied upon to actually result in them becoming Catholic.

My apologies, it is a failure of understanding then. Could you explain the essential difference then between:

I object to teaching x religion as relating facts of reality
and
I object to teaching that leads to the truth of x religion being a forgone conclusion

It seems very much to me as the difference between saying "I'd like two scoops of chocolate ice cream" and saying "I'd like two chocolate scoops of ice cream".

My point was that an open mind is necessary for a proper application of critical thinking, and having a foregone conclusion undermines this. There's more critical thinking in telling your child "use logic and reason to come to a conclusion based on the evidence" than there is in telling him "use logic and reason to come to a conclusion based on the evidence... as long as that conclusion is that the Catholic Church is rooted in truth."

Do tell, being such a large thread and short of time, I haven't been able to thoroughly digest every post... I don't see how the valuation put on my religion by others is relevant to how I raise said children.

It's just that if, in your case, the only person whose opinion matters for your religion should be you, then the only person whose opinion should matter for your son or daughter should be your son or daughter.

I'm asking in the hypothetical... Or are you saying in general that if you cannot demonstrate, it is not knowledge?

I'm not saying that it's necessarily true in every single case, but I think that in the vast majority of cases, when someone says "I know X, but I can't demonstrate it to you", it's more likely to be because they don't actually know X but want to exempt their belief from criticism than it is because they're somehow privy to special evidence that nobody else has.

Also, Occam's razor is relevant: people can be mistaken, or hallucinate, or have their thought process affected by any number of conditions. Assuming that the cause for the "knowledge" is something external implies some unknown mechanism; assuming that it's just rooted in the person's own mind doesn't assume any mechanism beyond those that we already know exist.

Is there no middle ground for you between "accepted uncritically" and "repeatable, demonstrable, and empirically proven"?

Sure there is. But getting beyond "accepted uncritically" needs some sort of evidence. At this point, AFAICT, we're still talking about the case where a parent wants the child to accept the parent's beliefs without the child having any evidence at all besides the parent's hearsay.

 

[Curious George]

This is as bad as the current "why cant we have a relationship with other men" thread.

Poor logic.

Nothing is inherently wrong or abusive with indoctrinating your child with religion. If a kids parents choose to structure the environment so that the child is predisposed to accept a certain religion- the child is not hurt except for when the religious practice crosses the line of abuse. And we have laws that deal with abuse.

Raising your child without a religion or without the religious preference is a belief in itself. Those who advocate for it believe that this is a better way to raise the child. While people can point to the fact that religions cannot prove their claims, these same people have yet to demonstrate that raising your child religiously is more harmful. While some may direct our attention at different examples of religions harming children, they can not demonstrate this for ALL religions. Therefore, suggesting that ALL religious indoctrination is bad is simply poor logic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is as bad as the current "why cant we have a relationship with other men" thread.

Poor logic.

Nothing is inherently wrong or abusive with indoctrinating your child with religion. If a kids parents choose to structure the environment so that the child is predisposed to accept a certain religion- the child is not hurt except for when the religious practice crosses the line of abuse. And we have laws that deal with abuse.

Raising your child without a religion or without the religious preference is a belief in itself. Those who advocate for it believe that this is a better way to raise the child. While people can point to the fact that religions cannot prove their claims, these same people have yet to demonstrate that raising your child religiously is more harmful. While some may direct our attention at different examples of religions harming children, they can not demonstrate this for ALL religions. Therefore, suggesting that ALL religious indoctrination is bad is simply poor logic.

That depends on what one views as harmful. Trying to deny a child the freedom to choose their own path on a matter of conscience is certainly disrespectful. Whether this is actually harmful probably depends on a number of factors.

 

[Curious George]

That depends on what one views as harmful. Trying to deny a child the freedom to choose their own path on a matter of conscience is certainly disrespectful. Whether this is actually harmful probably depends on a number of factors.

At what age can a child choose for their self? I believe the age of 12 was tossed out because it is roughly Piaget's age for abstract thought in development.

One could equally argue that denying a child spiritual guidance before the age of 12 is disrespectful and potentially harmful based on a number of factors.

Moreover, if you acknowledge that the actual harm is based on a number of factors then I guess Religious indoctrination is not the culprit here.

Finally, this is another what should we collectively control and what should individuals control.

BTW, are you suggesting parents should not be allowed to religiously indoctrinate their children or are you just calling the one's who do bad parents?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Trying to deny a child the freedom to choose

What freedom? I believe in "free will" (in a certain sense), that choices are not (fully) predetermined, etc., but that there is a "freedom" to choose that would be denied if child was indoctrinated into a religious background as opposed to a non-religious background? I don't believe that.

 

[Mister Emu]

But you also said (I think) that you'd raise your children to be Catholic.

You know, I'm not sure if I did... but I'll say it now. I would raise any children I have in the Catholic Church.

You also said that your own reasons for being Catholic can't be demonstrated to others

That isn't quite what I said... "don't translate to textual demonstration"... but yes and no, the demonstration is out of my hands.

which suggests to me that simply "guiding them in the ability to ascertain for themselves religious fact" couldn't be relied upon to actually result in them becoming Catholic

Teaching how to to find knowledge is never a guarantee that actual knowledge will be found.

Once again, I think we are going to disagree because of how we view the nature of religious beliefs. I don't view it as any different than another sort of knowledge, and I'm not going to pretend knowledge at all doesn't exist until my children are old enough to properly think critically(which can go into the late teens and adulthood).

Your request that I be neutral on religion with my children is the exact same thing as you a request that I should be neutral on the idea of holocaust denial, or (again, because I like them so much) reptilian overlords, or the shape of the Earth. It is all knowledge, it is all the same sort of thing and there is no reason to treat religion differently in terms of neutrality. If anything, given its import one should find themselves far more apt to bring their child up in the correct information.

My point was that an open mind is necessary for a proper application of critical thinking, and having a foregone conclusion undermines this.

I think you create a double standard for religion compared to other sectors of knowledge. Either, once again, we view religion through entirely different lenses, or you must wish the shut down of schools, the purveyors of knowledge without questioning, until the same age as you find it acceptable to influence on religion.

It's just that if, in your case, the only person whose opinion matters for your religion should be you, then the only person whose opinion should matter for your son or daughter should be your son or daughter.

Absolutely, no disagreement there, and hopefully they'll be as confident as me.

I think you confuse the fact that I plan to raise children in the truth in their formative years with the idea that I would somehow demand they assent to it later (one can't force assent).

I'm not saying that it's necessarily true in every single case

I'm asking, in regards to the teapot or dragon argument to ridicule.

What would you have the hypothetical person do? What would you do if you knew something to be true but could not demonstrate it? Would you just be quiet about it, ignore that you discovered a truth? That is what the flying teapot demands.

Also, Occam's Razor is far from compelling. It has general application, but when dealing with specifics is very lacking.